Category Archives: Opinion

Why politics and context matter in conservation policy

By Florence Damiens

Politics and context matter for conservation policy. That is why our research group, in collaboration with Brian Coffey and Lauren Rickards from RMIT University’s Centre for Urban Research, has just published a collective reply to Peter Kareiva and Emma Fuller’s article in Global Policy.

In brief, we argue that Kareiva’s and Fuller’s proposal does not sufficiently consider the core challenges faced by biodiversity conservation researchers and practitioners in this time of dramatic change, for people and nature. Conservation issues are context-dependent: ecological, economic, social, ethical and political. Embracing and responding to this complexity is a necessity when conceiving potential solutions for the future of conservation, humans and the biosphere.

While some of the approaches the authors promote may work in particular situations, we believe their proposal risks unintended and detrimental social and ecological consequences by presenting them as global solutions to complex problems that are context-dependent. In particular, their proposal does not address some of the key causes of biodiversity loss, i.e. over-exploitation of natural resources, intensive agricultural activity, urban development, and pollution. These causes are accepted as fait accompli and their mitigation as potential conservation strategies is not considered. New technologies and ‘managing for evolution’ are presented as guiding principles for any context, which is problematic. Moreover, the questions around what should be conserved, the processes by which biodiversity is valued, and who has the legitimacy to value it are not addressed. Lastly, we argue that a one-size-fits-all utilitarian approach and a neoliberal governance model, as proposed by Kareiva and Fuller, risks poor involvement or opposition from communities and societies and may undermine their traditional structures and relationships with nature.

See our full reply here: Damiens et al. (Online, 13 March 2017)

If you can’t access the paper using this link please send me an e-mail (florence.damiens@rmit.edu.au) and I will send you the pdf directly – thanks!

Advertisements

Get rid of politicians and restore democracy

Brendan Wintle and Sarah Bekessy

Picture Suzette. She is economically conservative and socially progressive. Suzette believes in fiscal restraint, reducing debt, deregulation, humanitarian treatment of refugees, reducing carbon emissions and the benefits to society of tax-deductible donations to environment groups. You can see the difficult choice she faces on election day. No single political party will adequately represent her views in parliament. Our party-political system of democracy is failing Suzette and most Australian citizens. A digitally driven direct democracy will be more democratic than the corruptible, self-interested party system we currently endure.

The Irish plebiscite on marriage equality reveals an alternative future for democracy; one driven by the views of citizens on individual issues. Even Peter Reith (www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/former-finance-minister-calls-for-plebiscite-on-gay-marriage/6531526), someone who gained so much from the party system, is advocating citizen decision-making for issues too hot for the party system to handle. Modern technology now makes a ‘direct democracy’; a ‘people’s parliament’, a plausible and practical alternative to the representative party system that consistently fails to adequately represent citizens’ views.

The most famous direct democracy existed in Athens in the fifth century BC. Unless you happened to be female, young, a slave or foreigner, citizens had a say in government on an issue-by-issue basis.

The thread of democracy persisted through Ancient Greece to the modern day. But in large, dispersed populations there was no practical way to maintain direct democracy as it was originally conceived. So rather than voting on issues, we now vote for parties that represent us on a range of issues.

The problem, of course, is that the policy platforms of two or more major parties are unlikely to completely accord with the values held by individual voters. By electing a party you are instantly trading between your values with respect to economic management, social justice, environment, and many other complex issues. Political parties are complicated, cumbersome, corruptible machines; blunt instruments for developing and implementing public policy that represents the views of citizens.

A further problem is that the primary goal of political parties is to gain election or re-election. The end result is policy tailored to the opinions and needs of a handful of voters in marginal electorates. Combined with the impact of heavy hitting lobby groups, representative democracy has come to represent the views of a very small proportion of citizens.

The problems with representative democracy run deeper. Giving over power to representatives reduces our responsibility to be fully informed. At only a few points in the political cycle are political parties strongly motivated to engage citizens with their policy agenda, and even then it tends to be focused on superficial, often divisive issues, with a the primary aim of political point-scoring and little attempt at mature, informative debate.

For the first time since Athens in 400BC, we have the capacity to garner the opinion of the entire public on a regular basis. Modern technology can connect individuals with decision-makers as they were connected in the ancient Greek Assemblies. While there will be many challenges to instituting a peoples parliament, the enormous potential for reclaiming that democratic ideal should motivate us to overcome them. Modern technology allows us to revisit the idea of a ‘peoples parliament’ and the benefits would be immediate.

Imagine how different the Australian political landscape would be if issues characterized by immense public support for change, but sluggish policy by the major political parties were progressed through plebiscite.  Would we have achieved marriage equality, would we have improved public transport, a meaningful resource rent tax, action on climate change, would we still have a tampon tax? Action in the form of change or reform around these issues would be rapid and popular. Not weighed down by the power of vocal and effective minority lobby groups.

But there will be many challenges to this democratic paradigm. Apart from vested interests of the current parties that occupy positions of power, large philosophical hurdles must be overcome. Would we self-destruct in a frenzy of self-interested tax cuts? Would the tragedy of the commons undermine all that is good about open democracy?  We think not. Take the debate about the parental leave scheme as an example. The lukewarm reception to Tony Abbott’s former paid parental leave policy reveals that the public is capable of sophisticated responses. The desire for resources to be directed to childcare rather than generous direct payments to parents suggests a preference for measures that allow parents to maintain their productive contributions to society.

There would be many technical and practical challenges. Not everybody is connected to the new digital age. How would we ensure that non-technology savvy people aren’t left behind in the new democracy? Finding ways of allowing everybody to contribute to the people’s parliament without having to visit the ballot box on a weekly basis is a challenge that must be overcome. Which issues are big enough to warrant a public vote, and which are small enough to be entrusted to the executive? Obviously we want a people’s parliament, not a people’s bureaucracy, so drawing the line between major political issues and the day-to-day business of government is a tough challenge. Who decides which issues go to a public vote, who will be our head of state?

The answer is that we cannot completely do away with elected representatives. We would still need a regular electoral cycle to allow the public to eject the executive if they are not sending the right issues out to plebiscite at the right frequency. But imagine if our elections were about this, rather than about whether or not we should ‘stop the boats’!  It is time to totally re-set the political compass and renew our democracy with a digitally enhanced people’s parliament.

The biggest challenge to all of this, or course, is getting politicians to vote it in.